Windows XP x64

[bxyhxyh]

XP should eat less power compared to windows 7, 8 and 10 so we can use that power to the real work (Encoding and etc...)

How stable is it compared to windows x64?

[Groucho2004]

XP should eat less power compared to windows 7, 8 and 10
True but hardly relevant for contemporary CPUs. Even with Win10 which probably runs 10 times more background processes than XP64, the actual CPU usage of those is probably just around 1-2 %. A real background CPU cycle parasite is for example AV software.

How stable is it compared to windows x64?I assume that you mean how stable is it compared to Win7/8/10 x64. It's difficult to quantify "stable". I have been using XP64 alongside XP32 for years and never had any problems.

[laserfan]

I used XP Pro x64 for years before setting-up dual boot to W7, and after a couple years of that realized XP was no longer needed i.e. I never booted to it cuz everything worked as-good-or-better on W7. So IMO there is no cause for anyone "going back" to that ancient OS at this point in time.

I do recall that there were a good number of programs/utils that did not work with XP Pro x64 though I don't remember much about that. Anyway it's certainly "less good" than W7 afaic.

[Blue_MiSfit]

Unless you have a legacy application that will only run on Windows XP x64 edition (doubtful) then you're definitely better off using any other modern release. Honestly even Server 2003 R2 would be a better choice :)

The effort and risk associated with running a legacy operating system like this isn't remotely worth any payoff you might get from slightly more available CPU resources. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the newer OSes are actually faster overall - provided your hardware is even remotely modern (i.e. Core 2 or newer)

[Katie Boundary]

XP and Vista both have the option of going back to the 9x-style interface, which is much, MUCH better than any of the interfaces that have come along since. This is a big enough deal for me that I'd actually rather use Vista than Win7. You can use ClassicShell to control SOME of the damage, but not all.

XP gives you unlimited control over where you put files. Under Vista+, anything that it recognizes as an image, video, audio, etc. file will be dumped into the corresponding "library", regardless of where you wanted them to go or how they were organized originally. There are ways around this (using a zip file as a trojan horse, for example), but they shouldn't be necessary in the first place.

Yes, there are numerous legacy applications that run under XP but not Vista+, even with compatibility modes and strange hacks. Such programs vastly outnumber the ones that only run on Vista+ (a list which, as far as I can tell, is limited to the PC port of Halo 2).

The least secure part of a computer system is always the user, not the OS.

On at least two computers running Win7, I've noticed an odd glitch that caused the systems to slow down to between 1/2 and 1/4 of their normal speed whenever they were set to automatically connect to wi-fi networks.

As you can guess, I'm an XP x64 fan.

Note: the 32-bit versions of XP are actually NT 5.1, whereas XP x64 Edition is synonymous with NT 5.2, so XP x64 Edition has advantages over XP Home and Pro that aren't related to its 64-bitness. There's also XP 64-bit Edition, which is for Itanium processors and might as well be from another planet. Do not confuse "XP x64 Edition" with "XP 64-bit Edition".

[sneaker_ger]

XP and Vista both have the option of going back to the 9x-style interface, which is much, MUCH better than any of the interfaces that have come along since. This is a big enough deal for me that I'd actually rather use Vista than Win7.
Windows 7 has that as well. It was only removed since Windows 8.

XP gives you unlimited control over where you put files. Under Vista+, anything that it recognizes as an image, video, audio, etc. file will be dumped into the corresponding "library", regardless of where you wanted them to go or how they were organized originally. There are ways around this (using a zip file as a trojan horse, for example), but they shouldn't be necessary in the first place.
No idea what you are talking about. Never experienced that using Win 7. :confused:

Yes, there are numerous legacy applications that run under XP but not Vista+, even with compatibility modes and strange hacks. Such programs vastly outnumber the ones that only run on Vista+ (a list which, as far as I can tell, is limited to the PC port of Halo 2).
We have been getting more and more complains from XP users on this forum.

[Katie Boundary]

Windows 7 has that as well. It was only removed since Windows 8.

Show me.

[sneaker_ger]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHnWy1ZfmXE